Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryam Yakubova (educator)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Yakubova (educator)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Maryam Yakubova (educator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced, not independently or otherwise notable, no substansial RS coverage. Nothing can be done to improve the article at this point. I can't even find a reliable source for the date of death claimed (though I doubt this is a BLP), since the only two sources in the article predate the claimed date of death. This article will be stuck with the problem tags forever it is remains, and there is nothing that can be done about that. I've searched high and low for verification, linked to the archived version of the website about her, found the pdf with the (very short) O'zME entry about her, but none of that can change the fact that she just doesn't make the cut. Media coverage is abysmal (the media coverage of the actress with the same name should not be confused with hers to counted toward it), fails GNG, meeting ANYBIO criteria for "likely" notablity is already a stretch (Order of Lenin and O'zME isn't a litmus test for notability, thank g-d), and none of that can compensate for overall lack of media coverage. Frankly I'm annoyed that this article was ever made, that time would have been much better spent writing an missing despratly article of any one of the exponentially more notable Uzbek people without articles on English Wikipedia that have a plethora of media coverage and verifable biographical information in reliable sources. Sorry, but no Wikipedia article should be dependent on O'zME (infamous for typos and mistakes) and a namesake website, and if that's the best you can do, it must go.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Keep, as creator: Poor writing is not in an of itself grounds for deletion, as articles can be cleaned up. To me, she meets the notability threshhold due to the entry in the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan. Now: that being said, I accepted the entry on faith when I created the article (there was an Uzbek-language article which sourced to it.) If that is in fact incorrect then I withdraw the objection, but I'd like evidence that she's not in the national encyclopedia. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being in the O'zME is not a litmus test for notability. It is filled with many entries of less-than-notable people whose media coverage outside the encyclopedia is scant to nonexistant and other basic biographical information unknown. She is indeed in O'zME, but that alone is no grounds for a keep. There are plenty of other short, niche articles there that do not meet English Wikipedia notability requirements.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PlanespotterA320:, @Justarandomamerican: Can you elaborate, please, as to why the Encyclopedia is not considered an acceptable source? Specifically, what are its standards for inclusion? Because it seems to me that if it's a national publication, that should be sufficient to establish notability. The lack of online sources is not in and of itself enough to claim lack of notability.
I'm not trying to be tendentious, but I think this is something that needs to be stated explicitly, because as it stands it seems to a casual observer (such as I am) that this encyclopedia does have a pedigree which makes it sufficient to establish notability. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is acceptable to cite O'zME in a bibliography, but an article needs more secondary sources than just that. Most biographies in O'zME are not available on English Wikipedia and do not meet any of the general notability requirements ie, significant coverage in secondary sources. One encyclopedia article doesn't cut it. It has never been claimed or established that O'zME alone is acceptable for claiming notability, and there is no reasonable way for a casual observer to infer that (considering how many O'zME articles are on niche subjects that lack external coverage and fail GNG).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom, fails Wikipedia:Notability, O'zME is not an ultimate test of notability. Kind regards, Justarandomamerican (talk) Also, have a nice day! 19:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She passes
    WP:NOTCLEANUP. Netherzone (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Netherzone: The formatting issues are not exclusive reasons for deletion (I just happened to be really annoyed by lack of effort into article). Being sloppy is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for producing an article that is largely dependent on O'zME and cannot sustain a sufficient bibliography, which no article should be. Keep in mind that O'zME is far more inclusive of people of low notability that other counterpart encyclopedias. Furthermore, WP:ANYBIO criteria are "likely" for notability, not guaranteed, and we have already established that most of the niche biographies in O'zME do not meet notability requirements.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:ANYBIO
is what I was looking for yesterday but couldn't find; thanks for that.
For what it's worth, I, too, am not pleased by the formatting issues that were introduced into the article after it was created. But again, they can be cleaned up.
Anyhow, I don't see anything in the discussion which changes my keep vote from earlier. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting issues have been addressed, but that doesn't change that fact that this is a bad article lacking RS on a non-notable person with scant secondary source mentions. Her biography in O'zME that is differed to for notability (as if hastily-assembled O'zME should have the same weight as other encyclopedias higher notability standards/only include the absolutely most known people of a nation) is a stub. Most of the information in the article comes from the namesake website that is now a dead link. Not good. We need RS coverage - not O'zME, not a sketchy website, or other marginal source to base an article on. I've worked with O'zME, and no offense to Uzbekistan, but it SUCKS. It is filled with typos, errors, and obscure non-notable people with no other media coverage (you are literally speaking to an admin of uzbek wikipedia where O'zME is the #1 source). We do NOT want having an O'zME entry to become automatic inclusion criteria here, it would be a nightmare.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless there is consensus that the national biographical encyclopedia is unreliable or indiscriminate, then the article passes
    WP:ANYBIO. Additionally, the Order of Lenin article states that it was "the highest civilian decoration bestowed by the Soviet Union". As the subject is deceased, there seems to be no valid deletion argument raised. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Re: the Order of Lenin award, that means she also meets criteria #1 of ANYBIO. Netherzone (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict:@Netherzone: 1. Order of Lenin is NOT the highest Civilian decoration bestowed by the Soviet Union (that's Hero of Socialist Labour), and she only received one. One Order of Lenin is not, should not, and will NEVER be a litmus test/guarantee of notability. WP:ANYBIO is still only a test for "likely" notability, a lack of sufficient sourcing per WP:GNG renders that a fail. 2. O'zME is not exactly the most reliable of sources (there are plenty of mistakes in it, since it is a hastily edited version of O'zSE) and it should NOT be the only secondary source of an article under any circumstance. This article still fails GNG and the basic three best sources test.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have exhaustively searched in offline libraries in the relevant country from the 1950s to date, as well as checking all print newspaper coverage over the same period (in which case you should state so clearly), then at best you are stating that the article needs improvement (a contention with which I will not argue). Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
WP:BEFORE search before nominating. Netherzone (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
ANYBIO clearly says that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." not that they ARE notable. Yes, she received the Order of Lenin, that that's not much at all - nearly half a million awarded it, and vast majority of single recipients of it are not notable and do not and will not have Wikipedia articles. 2. Her contributions to her field are NOT a "widely recognized contribution that is apart of enduring historical record". She remains quite an obscure person, and is by no means a national teaching icon on par with Hamza Hakimzade - she was just simply one of THOUSANDS of Soviet teachers (among other workers) who received a medal and a little bit of recognition for going an extra step. She did not fundamentally change the field at all. 3. Her entry in O'zME, a cumulative encyclopedia of almost every person that got even the least notable medals (many that we don't even have articles for) in Uzbekistan should not be a determining factor at all. If she were in the Great Soviet encyclopedia that would be different, but a mega-encyclopedia of literally every long-forgotten local celebrity (many of whom are long dead but obituaries cannot be found for) of a country of ~30 million people doesn't cut it. 4. Yeah, she has a few passing mentions in other medias (not to be confused with the many, more in-depth media coverage of the ACTRESS, not TEACHER, by the same name). Soviet newspapers list her in recipients of the Order of Lenin in award announcements. God save us from giving every single one of those people a Wikipedia article! Any search for her name in any language yields a preponderance of results about the actress by the same name, NOT her. Keep in mind that transclusions/mirror sites of various Wikipedias don't get be to counted as separate sources. The complete lack of post O'zME secondary media coverage - like an obituary in tashkentpamyat or any one of the many Uzbek newspapers online that could have published an obituary for her is a telling sign. If she was as notable as you think she is, like the actress by the name name she is often confused with, there would be plenty of obitaries, memorials, etc. But at this point the only thing we have to prove that this isn't a BLP is a shitty namesake website that no longer exists. I certainly hope we don't plan on creating articles for everyone in O'zMe born in the 1930's that don't have obitaries anywhere serious, because the last thing Wikipedia needs is a bunch of poorly written-machine translated low-notability articles stuck in limbo as "possible" BLPs but death date unknown. Sorry, but people with far more media coverage have gotten their articles deleted for lack of notability, and the warped precedent you're trying to create (likely out of poor understanding of Soviet awards and Uzbek media) can set a precedent for allowing any "average Ivan" with a popular medal and entry in a niche encyclopedia and not even a verifiable death date to get a Wikipedia article and be a "kinda" BLP. The last thing we need at Wikipedia is to allow more articles about people with unknown death dates / people not known enough to get an obitary. No obituary, not many secondary sources, not a "first" (ex, first Uzbek woman teacher), no GNG? Sorry, but not notable, not matter how much puffery one can write to trump up perceived importance. Please try to improve Wikipedia by adding articles about people will not have to have improvement-needed tags in perpetuity--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong Delete as nominator - nothing can be done to improve the article at this point. I can't even find a reliable source for the date of death claimed (though I doubt this is a BLP), since the only two sources in the article predate the claimed date of death. This article will be stuck with the problem tags forever it is remains, and there is nothing that can be done about that. I've searched high and low for verification, linked to the archived version of the website about her, found the pdf with the (very short) O'zME entry about her, but none of that can change the fact that she just doesn't make the cut. Media coverage is abysmal (the media coverage of the actress with the same name should not be confused with hers to counted toward it), fails GNG, meeting ANYBIO criteria for "likely" notablity is already a stretch (Order of Lenin and O'zME isn't a litmus test for notability, thank g-d), and none of that can compensate for overall lack of media coverage. Frankly I'm annoyed that this article was ever made, that time would have been much better spent writing an missing despratly article of any one of the exponentially more notable Uzbek people without articles on English Wikipedia that have a plethora of media coverage and verifable biographical information in reliable sources. Sorry, but no Wikipedia article should be dependent on O'zME (infamous for typos and mistakes) and a namesake website, and if that's the best you can do, it must go.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PlanespotterA320: You have already !voted with your nomination. Why are you !voting a second time? You should strike your second !vote. It is fine to add comments, but not to double !vote in deletion discussions to prove your point. Please, let's adhere to our policies and guidelines. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT remove my comments from an Afd again, PlanespotterA320, that is considered disruptive editing. Instead, if you want to change your own comments, strike-out your old text and modify it with the new. These discussion must be kept intact. Please do not do that again. Netherzone (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
STOP! I just asked you NOT to modify my comments, and I see that you have struck my comments. Do nor do that again, as it is considered disruptive editing. Please change my comments back to what they were immediately! They should not be struck. Netherzone (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove your latest comments, I merely struck through a closed issue (intending to just close mine, but missing a / in the closer). If it means that much to you that , you could have added a / second <s> end of my paragraph (that I added to close the strikethrough but failed due to the missing / type) instead of flipping out, so please calm the f*&% down.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You removed my comment with this Diff: [1] Do not do that again. Netherzone (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for removing that comment (and mine) for an issue I thought was closed (it seemed like you wanted it removed). I have not attempted to delete it again. There is no need to flip out over a goddamn strikethrough. You are a strong Wikipedian. If seeing the entire section struckthrough was too much, you are more than capable of editing the wikitext and adding the missing dash.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: The deletion rationale has been greatly expanded after the comments by myself and others. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
not a good look, just to confirm, nomination rationale was originally just the first sentence (see here), a day later the nominator inserted an extra 7 sentences (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to expand my commentary on the issue and it was obviously nessesary to rebutt claims of O'zME being a sign of notability (since it REALLY isn't, as anyone that's read it can tell you considering it has so many biographies of people with no other significant media coverage).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
which nominators do during the discussion, not by enhancing their original rationale. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly reiterated that National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan has a very, very, very, low bar for inclusion not on par with general notability and WP:ANYBIO general likelyhood for notability conditions does not trump failing WP:GNG. Coverage outside O'zME is minimal to nonexistant, as with that of hundreds to thousands of other people included in the encyclopedia. Frankly O'zME should be a deprecated source considering how many errors are in it (if it's worth including in the wiki, other sources should be able to be found)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes, readers of this afd know your opinion, also, could you please explain where you get "with that of hundreds to thousands of other people included in the encyclopedia." as the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan article states that the entire encyclopedea contains 50 thousand articles, and finally, you do not need to respond to everybody who disagrees with you, see leave the horse alone. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC) - oops, concede may well be "thousands" of biographies there, with a Uzbek pop. of 30 million why would this be an issue given the 1.7million wikibio articles. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion process. Netherzone (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does the Order of Lenin not make her notable? Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not, just as having an entry in National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: the Order of Lenin is a notable award - the highest civilian decoration bestowed by the Soviet Union, and indeed contributes towards notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is NOT the highest civilian award in the Soviet Union, and you should know that by now considering I have already told you it is Hero of Socialist Labour, NOT the Order of Lenin that is the highest Soviet award. And even then, most HSL are hardly notable and quite obscure, having received the title for mundane things and lacked decent RS media coverage. Either way, being a recipient of the Order of Lenin is no guarantee or determinate of notability at all - tens of thousands of people received it, most of whom will never have Wikipedia articles. And I STILL want a list of the three best RS for this topic - can that test, the ultimate test of notability - be passed? Certainly seems like it can't.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. More than 400 thousand people in the USSR receive this order. A page about everyone? My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -
    WP:ANYBIO - 1. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.", it does not say "the highest award" no matter how may times editors state it in afds; note, i am not saying that the HSL OL by itself is necessarily enough for anybio just that the emphasis on having to obtain the highest award may be misplaced. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete As per nomination. Pumpsdups (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. The Order of Lenin was awarded to literally hundreds of thousands of people. --Tataral (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan is national biographical dictionary and is a reasonable source for
    WP:BIO purposes. Second, other sources, in Russian, do exist, although they don't allow full preview in GBooks (which is not surprising). E.g. this book[2] contains a fairly detailed discussion about Yakubova, in several places. There are briefer mentions as well, e.g. [3][4][5][6] (Moreover, in this last source, the mention of Yakubova apparently concerns some other article about her, by B. Volkov "To work with full dedication".) The Order of Lenin was the highest civilian decoration in the USSR. The Hero of Socialist Labor was a rank/title, which involved receiving two decorations, the Order of Lenin and a Gold Star Medal. Thus, as an award, the Hero of Socialist Labor was indeed higher. But the Order of Lenin was still a huge deal and extremely prestigious. However, of more note is Yakubova's title of People's Teacher of the USSR. That was the highest honorary title awarded by the state to teachers and it was quite rare. Only 110 people[7] ever received this honor, from its establishment in 1977 to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In terms of prestige the title was roughly comparable to People's Artist of the USSR, only the title of People's Teacher of the USSR was more rare. In fact, there would certainly be articles about Yakubova in the regional press in 1986 at the time this title was awarded, and they still exist somewhere in paper form in the Uzbek libraries. Nsk92 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You are again giving undue weight to the Order of Lenin as a notability qualifier - It was awarded hundreds of thousands of times to numerous obscure people for hardly notable things ranging from being an above-average teacher to exceeding quota of sunflower seeds grown (yes, people really did get the Order of Lenin for that). We cannot feasibly give every Ivan and Irina that got it an article. As for press coverage, I happen to have access to 1986 Sovet Uzbekistoni newspaper archives via newspaperarchive.com, and various keyword searches of OCR text yeilded nothing except info about the actress of the same name. As for the title of people's teacher somehow being a qualifier, it's not. There is a very good reason there are thousands of articles about PAU in Russian Wikipedia (many of which also in enwiki) but Yakubova is the only People's Teacher with an article in enwiki - People's (job) itself is not a qualifier for notability, only the prestige that comes with having done what it takes to get the award (ex, be a famous musician, actress, artist with lots of media coverage) is. Since teachers are hardly celebreties, those awarded People's teacher don't get articles. There is no precedent for People's Teacher being a qualifier for notability (currently her article is the only one we have), and setting such precedent would be very problematic to put it mildly by allowing creation of dozens of articles about people with next to no information available as "forever stubs", and unless you intend to help create articles for the rest of that list, Yakubova's article will remain a stand-alone. The book previews you linked to were mostly passing mentions and low-information content (ex, recollections of attending school with her, etc), none of which can be used to address the fact that this article will remain an "eternal stub" - still no RS for date of death, no obituary, no find a grave, no nothing.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 04:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion. The article isn't adequately referenced but it meets standards as it has a source that meets
    WP:GNG. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Leaning toward delete per
    single event (media and O'zME appear limited to the OL award, not so much on the contributions that merited it or on her later work), I'd be inclined to give more weight to the source evaluation of an Uzbek wiki admin. I would also say rarity of an award is necessary but not sufficient for inherent notability, and the opposite would be disqualifying. Nsk92, your 6th link just says "No results in this book for Марьям Якубова "народный учитель" -артистка", do you have a working link? Also, in my opinion, the National Encyclopedia criterion is more intended for historical figures who would not have accessible contemporary media coverage but are notable enough to endure in the national conscience for centuries. Almanac-style editions containing contemporary people shouldn't be considered equivalent. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Strange, that GBooks link is working for me. Try this one:[8]. If it doesn't work, go to the search text window at that link (you'll see something like & quot;КПСС Марьям Якубовой& quot; there) and press enter there. Then the snippet view should become visible. Nsk92 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One should not use "артистка" (actress) in search because it leads to another person with the same name, Maryam Yakubova (actress) (she is notable), not to subject of this page. Worse, I checked this Uzbek encyclopedia and did not find entry for "ЁҚУБОВА Марям". Is it correct spelling? Any Google translation and what it say? My very best wishes (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Uzbek spelling is correct but I also believe in the Uzbek alphabet the order of letters is different and K occurs in the end. The entries for both Maryam Yakubovas (the educator and the actress) are at the end of the pdf file, on p. 71. Nsk92 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! So, on page 71 it tells the following (Google translation): "YaKUBOVA Maryam (December 5, 1931, Ur-Ganch) - People's Teacher (1986). Honored Teacher of Uzbekistan (1978). People's Scientist of Uzbekistan (1958). Хоразмпед. intiningfizi-kamat, phthinitugatgan (1952). From 1952 he was a teacher of physics at the 1st school in Urgench. From 1958 to 1962 he was a teacher in Urgench. Head of the Department of Public Education, director of the boarding school in Urgench in 1962-92. Or. The boarding school under his leadership was one of the few in the country that did not provide modern education."
This is all we know about her. I am certain this page should be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments.
    talk) 00:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maryam_Yakubova_(educator)&oldid=1004486696"